The sore loser

Posted Wednesday, October 14, 2009, at 11:33 AM

One of our web site commenters was less than pleased with the outcome of Tuesday's election:

This whole thing stinks, I'm ashamed of the people of shelbyville and surrounding counties. My apologies go out to [candidate] for the evilness in the world, money talks and people walk. I'd be ashamed if I was accepted for office cause I had to buy your vote, and that's is exactly what is going on in the world today, and we want god to bless our nation, maybe its best that obama has his way and we turn socialist or communist, cause you people are low lifers and a undeserving to the soldiers fighting for a just United States, and most of all to god, bet you can't buy your way into heaven, go ahead and try. I just want to go under my bed and hide until you all receive your justice, anyone want to try and buy me off with a chunck of money to shut up. You are all a bunch of bought off [prostitutes].

May god and jesus christ be heavy on your souls

Don't be shy; tell us what you really think.

The American system of government is based on representative democracy. The people get to vote for who they want to represent them. If you are a voter, sometimes the candidate you agree with or support will be elected, sometimes a candidate you disagree with and did not support will be elected. That's the system under which we operate.

It's entirely appropriate to say, "I think the public made a mistake by voting for Candidate X instead of Candidate Y, and here's why I think so." It's also appropriate to say "money and advertising play an inappropriately-large role in our political discourse" if you believe that to be true.

But I think it's wrong, not to mention counterproductive, to call someone "bought off" or a "low life" just because they voted for someone different than you did. The American system means that people have the right to vote for whomever they choose.

It's also a little arrogant -- in any race or election -- to claim that God favors your candidate, and only your candidate. Even if we could look over God's shoulder at God's position on each and every governmental issue, I think we'd find that no candidate was in perfect agreement right down the line. There are conservative principles in line with some Bible teachings; there are liberal princples in line with some Bible teachings; there are moderate compromises in line with some Bible teachings. People of faith have to use their own consciences and common sense and vote for whomever they feel will be the best overall. And reasonable people who believe in the same God may turn out to believe in different political parties or candidates.

It's always disheartening when a candidate in whom you believe strongly ends up losing. But that's not an occasion for name-calling your fellow citizens or the candidate whom they elected. It's an invitation to re-evaluate, and to re-energize, so that you can get your message out more effectively the next time around.

Someone once said that representative democracy was the worst system of government ever invented -- except for all the other systems. Democracy is not always easy, or pretty, especially when you find yourself on the losing side. But it's the best system we have.

I, too, was in favor of the candidate that this commenter is referring to, but the people made their choice and I support that choice and will support the elected official.

This tirade only casts a negative light on the very person this commenter claims to be backing. It is childish and pety, and to be equated with stomping one's feet during a tantrom....pitiful.

John I applaud you for putting this commentor "on the hook" and calling him/her on their less than appropriate behavior...the pety name calling from a sore loser. And to use God as though he were a political campaign manager in favor of any specific candidate is reprehensible.

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 12:05 PM

Thank you John for posting this. Again I have to agree with Shawna. This commenter only hurt the person, he/she supported.

The use of pseudonyms shouldn't entitle us to speak without accountability. We need to remember that our words reflect directly back on who and what we are, even when we think we are anonymous.

If we wrote to each other as if were were speaking directly to each other would we be more civil and polite? I would hope so.

-- Posted by amalphia on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 12:41 PM

This was actually a very bad idea on John's part . . . why point out the frustration of one individual when many have exhibited such behavior the past few week? Maybe because this individual supported a candidate that the Times Gazette sometimes had trouble remembering to mention in certain articles.

Maybe the commentator did go about it the wrong way but he stated an opinion and then John comes in on his mighty horse and lampoons this one individual when others have done the same.

Somewhat tacky in my opinion even though I do disagree with the comment the person made.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 1:18 PM

I don't always agree with what J.Carney writes because he sways stories with writing style. That being said I almost fully back his statement above. I did not vote for the winning candidate but he is now an elected official, elected by popular vote. The majority of the voters have spoken, so please respect him and his position. If there is a legislative problem that someone might want to address with him then contact him and discuss the problem. Let's don't trash the man or the people that supported him, that does nothing to make things better. If you don't like the winner, then vote your preference next time around. Next year. If he does a good job and represents the people of this district fairly, then re-elect him for doing his job.

-- Posted by tomjones on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 1:23 PM

"...why point out the frustration of one individual when many have exhibited such behavior the past few week?"

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 1:18 PM

You've made a very good point, and I have to agree there has been a lot of "mud slinging" in other areas that was not made mention...anyone remember being called "weiner boy," "ignorant, stupid, pieces of dog ****," "dumb, ignorant, redneck, backwoods, hillbilly clowns that don't know your butts from a hole in the ground..."

Not only was that post not pulled, even after at least two individuals made a complaint and clicked the circled exclamation mark, but that commentor was never singled-out and referrenced by t-g staff as being inappropriate like the one referrenced in this blog.

I'm not trying to pick on the commenter of the post referrenced above, she has made the effort to apologize for her outburst and would probably remove it herself if she could, and she is not alone in the area of crude and slanderous posts, but I do think that much of the t-g way of thinking is often "slanted." Though I still agree that this commenter was way out of line and pety & childish, there are many more moronic rants left unmentioned. what about the others...why single out one?

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 1:38 PM

Maybe this was just the straw that broke the camel's back, jaxspike. And I don't think I "lampooned" the individual so much as he or she lampooned himself or herself. I was making a serious point in what I thought was a measured and balanced way. I think anyone would have to admit this was a particularly excessive statement example of the "anyone who disagrees with me is against God and going to hell" mindset.

By the way, as I have stated over and over, I do not read every story or blog comment. Neither I nor anyone else in the newsroom has that kind of time. That's why much of our enforcement is complaint-driven. And I took a vacation day on Monday, so I didn't have anything to do with some of the moderation decisions that day.

I know one of my co-workers, who wasn't involved in covering the race regularly, forgot to mention Chris Brown in one story -- one story, not "certain articles" -- but I am certain that I mentioned him every time I wrote anything about this race, and made an effort to treat all three candidates fairly. My immediate supervisor also made it clear he would not participate in any debate unless all three candidates participated. I don't think anyone can legitimately claim that we overlooked Chris Brown or didn't give him adequate coverage compared to the other candidates.

I did miss a candidate forum he hosted, which turned into a two-out-of-three debate, and I apologized for that omission and attempted to make it up by running a story about the debate afterward. The T-G certainly gave Mr. Brown much, much more exposure than the regional or state media did.

-- Posted by Jicarney on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 1:40 PM

"The T-G certainly gave Mr. Brown much, much more exposure than the regional or state media did."

-- Posted by Jicarney on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 1:40 PM

That's very true. In fact, were it not for the articles in the t-g I may never have given Chris Brown an in-depth look as a true candidate, but rather would likely have considered him "the write-in" candidate and focused on the D-R like most everyone else.

To Chris Brown,

If you dedcide to continue in your pursuit of a political career, please consider me a future volunteer at your campaign's disposal. You may reach me at homeschooltrend@aol.com...I'm happy to go door-to-door, hand out flyers, etc. (at least, once my health is 100% and I'm no longer on driving restrictions).

-- Posted by shawna.jones on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 1:51 PM

Dear commenter's, T-G readers and supporters, this is Chris T. Brown, in order to build the Party, we don't need the fighting. This party is based on Christian beliefs and the Constitution. In order to help it grow, we need to put the people first and stop fighting amongst each other for those of you who are a card carrying member and for those of who are not members we need your help to help this party grow and distinguish us from the other parties. I ran to help people and hate to see all this bickering and I appreciate T-G for recognizing the Constitution party, but I don't agree with John pin-pointing one article when so many have been said from all parties. Under the Constitution I don't believe John should block freedom of speech as long as there is no cussing, but if there is then it should be blocked, because children have access to this paper on-line. This world is made up of all educational levels, race, and back-grounds and we all have to learn to live together. I appreciate all my supporters and thank you all for standing up for your Constitutional rights. We hope to soon form a local chapter and I invite anyone who would like to be a part of this to contact me at ctbrown2010@hotmail.com Some people that voted for me may not have liked me as a person, but maybe what they have checked out about the party. I hope to represent the Constitution Party at a later date. May God Bless you all.

Mr. Carney was correct in the statement he made. I read the comments about yesterday's election results. It doesn't matter what our opinion is, there is always someone out there who is going to disagree. I for one did not have my vote purchased by anyone. I voted for whom I thought was best for the job, only after I studied and researched each person and their views.

The comment section after each story in the paper is not a place to start a fight. I'd wager that the ones who always complain and condemn are the ones who never get off the computer long enough to vote. Mr. Cobb spent a lot of money on mailing flyers or having his people stick them on the doors. I got them nearly everyday. Mr. Browns Truck was all over town, so people could see it. Mr. Marsh ran a clean campaign, until he was constantly attacked by Cobb.

EM,MM & JS, are always getting on here and running everyone elses opinions down. I don't agree with everything in the Gazette myself. But the comment that the person Mr. Carney was referring to left, was demeaning to all women. And to use the name of God while doing it, uncalled for. Maybe that person needs to reread his Bible and the parable about casting stones. I do think it says."let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Frankly I know of no one who can. Do you?

-- Posted by MrsGailCL on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 8:01 PM

Mama52,

I would appreciate you leaving me out of this, I don't know where you keep bringing me into this. If you got something to say, then say it and still insinuating crap.

"I do think it says."let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." Frankly I know of no one who can. Do you?"

Pot calling the kettle black.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 10:02 PM

I couldn't agree more with everything you said John. Where was the bias in this piece that you speak of Jax and Moral? John removed the candidate's name from the comment and he supported his statement with very clear and logical arguments that were very fair and balanced. Interesting post John, good work!

-- Posted by nathan.evans on Wed, Oct 14, 2009, at 10:30 PM

I hope and pray that everyone will see that we now have to focus on if the job to help the citizens of district 62 will be done. When they start the redistricting, I fear we will be split and then we will not be heard. We need to keep a close eye on what is about to happen starting in the near future. I hope Pat will stick to his word and let the Lord lead him and not the party. I'm scared that this will not happen though, I feel maybe he might owe them now and what they want will come first, before all of us. Pat, please stick to your word and be "For the People" of this district.

-- Posted by sawyers69 on Thu, Oct 15, 2009, at 6:20 AM

""""It's also a little arrogant -- in any race or election -- to claim that God favors your candidate, and only your candidate. Even if we could look over God's shoulder at God's position on each and every governmental issue, I think we'd find that no candidate was in perfect agreement right down the line. There are conservative principles in line with some Bible teachings; there are liberal princples in line with some Bible teachings; there are moderate compromises in line with some Bible teachings. People of faith have to use their own consciences and common sense and vote for whomever they feel will be the best overall. And reasonable people who believe in the same God may turn out to believe in different political parties or candidates.

It's always disheartening when a candidate in whom you believe strongly ends up losing. But that's not an occasion for name-calling your fellow citizens or the candidate whom they elected. """"